Was fidel castro responsible for any deaths in your family?
Lose any uncles or fathers or brothers in castro’s gulags?
Lose any aunts of sisters or mothers to the ocean?
Separated from your family, never to see any of them again before they passed?
Gore Vidal has a message for you: FUCK YOU.
Well, I have a message for Gore Vidal…
Maybe his 80th birthday wish was to meet castro … they should send him, along with his small delegation, back to the USA via a raft … let then experience first hand why Cubans risk all to leave such a “fascinating country”.
Gore Vidal is a true Ignoranus!
Ignoranus: “A person who’s both stupid and an asshole.” ~ Unknown
I wish you well 🙂 Melek
“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend”. ~ H.B.
Way to continually frame every topic within a polarizing, disjunctive context! Nothing encourages civil discussion and debate like painting topics in such biased, broad strokes and then wrapping them in argumentative fallacies like Appeals to Emotion. Why pull any punches? You should have mentioned how Gore Vidal wants to kick every exile’s dog and rape every exile’s baby too.
Bravo Val.
Though I totally disagree with Gore Vidal, he’s entitled to his opinion. It just irks me when these folks travel to Cuba and come back with glowing comments, ignoring the true reality and the exodus of so many Cubans. If it so damn good there, has he pondered why people want to leave on a flimsy raft?
I remember when Vidal arrived on the scene with his books, back in the 60’s and 70’s when I was a new arrival to the US. As I grew up, I thought he was a dirty old man. Would not read his book. He’s been a scummy darling of the left for years; he likes to think of himself as a force for shock value. Shock maybe, value zilch.
In a tv interview a couple of years ago, he looked WASTED and acabado — si no me dicen el nombre, no lo reconozco. So if he’s gone to Cuba, he’s in good company. Vultures of a feather flock together.
Gore Vidal is entitled to his opinion…and so is Val. He can frame the story any way he wants to.
Funny how those that advocate the loudest for “freedom of expression” are the first to complain when a dissenting voice is heard.
DigitalCubano, have you ever read any Vidal? I have. He’s a masterful writer who has squandered his talent. He’s a total waste of a human being. He has aligned himself with the most heinous of leaders and political causes, manipulating facts to serve an agenda. And he doesn’t even live in the US! I think all that fellatio has softened his head (no pun intended).
(And, to add insult to injury, he’s related to Al Gore.)
Are you saying that is someone says that the Embargo has failed, the that equates to saying the F bomb?
Well, then according to most Free Market Organizations, they are all giving Cuban Americans a big “F – U”
The CATO Institute says:
“Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help.”
“Lifting or modifying the embargo would not be a victory for Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue acknowledgment that the four-decade-old embargo has failed and that commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more-open societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should continue to criticize the Cuban government’s abuse of human rights, while allowing expanding trade and tourism to undermine Castro’s authority from below.”[2]
The Acton Institute says:
“Isolating Cuba only strengthens Castro’s position internally, and lends credence to his claim that the U.S. disregards the welfare of Cuban citizens. The U.S. must reaffirm the superiority of a free-market system, as other Latin American countries have realized, and lead by example by trading with Cuba. Only then will the people benefit from needed products. Only then will a burgeoning culture of freedom among Cubans be related to economic liberty, the liberty that, in the words of John Paul II, aims to bring more of the world’s poor into the ‘circle of exchange.'”[3]
The Foundation for Economic Education says:
“Ironically, the big losers from the embargo’s passing into history would be Fidel Castro and his communist cronies. For over four decades they have been able to ascribe the failure of the Cuban economy to the U.S. embargo. Blaming foreigners for homegrown economic ills is not unique to Cuba. The practice has a long history. What makes the Cuban embargo different is that the foreigners—that is, the United States—handed Castro his red herring on a silver platter.”
“So the United States ended up being played for a fool after all, but not for reasons the conservative proponents of the embargo have long argued. Rather, it’s the very success these proponents have enjoyed in sustaining the embargo that has led to this unfortunate result.”[4]
The Ludwig von Mises Institute says:
“Many conservatives, including those who say they support free markets, insist that this embargo, like all of the dozens of other embargoes and sanctions this government sponsors, is necessary to promote freedom here and abroad. Fidel Castro is an oppressive, bloody dictator whose tyrannical regime has little to offer but poor sugar harvests, a dilapidated capital city that Caribbean partygoers once knew as a jewel named Havana in the pre-communist era, and cigars that we can’t legally buy in the USA.
This is a bogus argument. For many years, the US government has regularly carried on diplomatic relations and traded with nations governed by tyrants bloodier than Castro.”[5]
“But the chief support for the embargo today arises from an ever-shrinking segment of the 1 million or so Americans with family ties to Cuba—less than one percent of the US population. A recent survey of Americans disclosed that over 53 percent of Americans wish the embargo lifted in the long and total absence of any sort of potential military threat from Cuba. That such a tiny minority in the US electorate can so long perpetuate such a wanton and anachronistic misuse of American power is a telling rebuke to those many Americans who chide such governments as China’s and Cuba’s for enforcing policies that are not desired by their populaces.”
“How much longer must the United States continue its futile and ossified policy of frustrating the very sort of trade that made it the wonder and envy of the world?”[6]
And, finally, the Institute of Economic Affairs says:
“Until Fidel Castro expires, it seems to be US policy that nothing can be done to liberate Cuba. They should try trade. A tide of tourists and entrepreneurs could engulf and explode the communist inertia. It would not just be dollars but joy and laughter.”[7]
[2]http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6609
[3]http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=9
[4]http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=5390
[5]https://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=341&sortorder=articledate
[6]http://www.mises.org/story/1777
[7]http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=news&ID=374
Val,
Why are you wasting you time on such a clown as Gore Vidal?
If he is in Cuba right now he is with Raul playing a spirited game of “Hide the Salami.”
Chihuahua_Hunter
About all those “organizations”… Frankly my dear…!
Hear me WELL!!! It WORKED for South Africa!!!! Do you want to know why? Because every country WAS ON BOARD!
With regards to Cuba IT’S BUSINESS AS USUAL as far as any other country EXCEPT the United States.
It WOULD HAVE worked for CUBA if ALL other countries REALLY cared about DEMOCRACY and HUMAN RIGHTS!
GOT THAT!
Firefly,
With you on this one 100%.
Chihuahua_Hunter is beginning to smell like all the other leftist trolls that soil this blog merely with their presence…
I’m all for banning him and his kind from this blog. Who needs their shit?
Chihuahua_Hunter,
Your choice of name is a bit telling … couldn’t it be “chihuahua_advocate” instead of hunter?
If you read the article … it was not all about the embargo … the only way someone can refer to Cuba as a “Fascinating Country” these days is if they are not in touch with the Cuban reality!
I wish you well 🙂 Melek
“There is only one good — knowledge; and only one evil — ignorance.” ~ Socrates
No Omar, let him spew his crap. “By their words shall ye know them.”
While I don’t fully agree with Chihuahua Hunter’s conclusion, at least he/she (are you male or female?) is presenting it in a well-thought-out, reasoned manner. Not a personal attack; just a different viewpoint. America’s values, unlike Cuba, are about free expression.
One of the great things about message boards is the opportunity for intelligent debate. Fidel is the one who’s all about silencing dissent. We should embrace free expression, even when we disagree.
Chihuahua put forth a thoughtful argument for why we should drop the embargo. Now, it’s time for a response — because debate is the cornerstone of a free society.
For instance: Chihuahua, one of your sources says that we should drop the embargo because we trade with other, bloodier, regimes.
……………. shouldn’t our goal be to trade with LESS dictatorships, not MORE of them??? I’m talking from a moral point of view, not solely an economic efficiency point of view.
I would love to trade with Cuba. But Castro’s embargo on his own people prevents them from seeing the benefits. Instead, they all go to Fidel’s Swiss bank accounts…
Dave’s last paragraph says it all.
Chihahua,
Two words for an answer, SOUTH AFRICA!
‘nough said.
I have no praise for anything the Mr. Vidal may say about Cuba at this moment, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt until he returns to a western country. (He is still in Cuba as we blog) I just hope that he is saying what he is saying only to make the Cuban “government” officials to allow him more freedom and see more of the truth. Hopefully, when he is out of Cuba, he will be more truthful of the what he observed there.
I think the Chihuahua Hunter made a good point, based on Prieto’s principle of what equates to saying “F-U” to Cuban exiles.
One of the Gore Vidal quotes is that the embargo has failed. And, given the evidence presented by CH, many libertarians also feel this way.
According to Prieto’s principle, are libertarians also saying “F-U” to Cuban exiles?
I don’t think the argument was Pro or Con for the embargo, just a challenge to Prieto’s sweeping principle.
And, concerning South Africa, I think that we should consider that it was not only multi-lateral sanctions that were effective, but rather a social movement that had begun very early on. Sanctions against South Africa slowly came, with US doubting the use. But, even after many decades and UN resolutions showing that multi-lateralism won’t come to sanctions for Cuba. We should expect that the South Africa model shall never come to Cuba, not just for the failure of unilateral sanctions, but because of the fact that a similar social movement is unlikely to occur.
Dave Sandoval wrote:
“I would love to trade with Cuba. But Castro’s embargo on his own people prevents them from seeing the benefits. Instead, they all go to Fidel’s Swiss bank accounts…”
That’s not the position of the US government, as has been made public. Why bring it up? We should concentrate on the positions of OUR government, not our own.
Can you explain how, or give examples of situations where lifting economic sanctions had the result of political or economic liberalization?
If you do take that position, consider that castro’s economic structure strictly rations the economy and criminalizes private ownership/free trade. How will lifting sanctions have the effect of getting past the Cuban government, and reaching the people of Cuba?
Libya is one example where the end of sanctions has brought upon economic liberalization. Mainly due to its energy resources and geographic location, have these recent turn of events occured.
But, also NEGOTIATIONS took place with Libya and the US, at the urging of the UN! “Intense diplomatic efforts on the part of South African President Nelson Mandela, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and others also were important in launching negotiations between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Libya in the late 1990s. These negotiations led to the compromise allowing for the surrender of two suspects in the Pan Am bombing, agreements on compensation for the families of the victims of the Lockerbie and UTA bombings, and Libya’s admission of guilt and renunciation of terrorism.”[1]
Let’s take remember that the US REFUSES to negotiate with Cuba. Point here is that ending sanctions is but ONE step in a process of “normalization”.
Can’t say strongly that lifting the Libya sanctions have brought sweeping political liberalization, but there HAVE been some changes.
“The government initiated some important reforms in 2005…the government abolished the People’s Court, a body that had tried most political cases without adequate due process guarantees…[t]he government pledged itself to examine some human rights abuses of the past…Libya periodically opened itself to scrutiny from human rights groups after years of denying them entry… Human Rights Watch conducted research in the country for the first time [recently].[2]
A lot of work goes into changing the behaviors of other nations. Most of the time, BOTH disputing parties have to make the changes upon themselves. This is a lesson that the US can take with regards to Cuba. Funny that it hasn’t.
[1]http://www.iie.com/research/topics/sanctions/libya3.cfm#author
[2]http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/libya12227.htm
Orpheus,
Let me give you a little lesson in blog ettiquette and terminology. First, once you comment on any particular blog, you should always maintain the same nickname. That way the blog owner, contributors and readers are able to recognize you and your comments.
second, there’s a term called “sock puppetry” in Blog lingo. A sock puppet is when one person comments and then that same person comes in under another nickname and comments on how much they agree with the first persons comment.
You stated:
I think the Chihuahua Hunter made a good point, based on Prieto’s principle of what equates to saying “F-U” to Cuban exiles.
Well, OF COURSE, youre going to agree with Chihuahua Hunter because YOU ARE chihuahua hunter.
You see, when you register to comment and comment on this blog, I get your IP addresses and also the email address to which each nickname is registered to. Thus, you came in yesterday from a comcast net connection under “Chihuahua Hunter” with the email the_paul78@yahoo.com and today you came in as “Orpheus” with an FIU IP and an email address of the_paul78@yahoo.com.
Anything you ight have stated to have even an incling of truth is now suspect as you are a sock puppet.
Please do not do that again or you will be banned.
Thanks.
Hell, Val, sock puppets have more brains than these losers. I think you owe sock puppets an apology for comparing them to O2/CH…
The Chihuahua Hunter and “One Question…” are all alter-egos. I was even planning to have a conversation with myself at some point.
Guess what? You are now banned. Either respect the rules here or find somewhere else to spew your rhetoric.
Val